Search form

Against "Evil"

Shocking examples of cruelty and violence appear in the news nearly every day. With the most heinous of these crimes, there is an understandable tendency to think of the perpetrators of these crimes as evil. Who else could torture and murder? To explain such cruelty, however, psychologists should avoid the religious concept of evil.

To begin, evil shuts down the possibility of psychological explanation. As a concept, evil stands alone and absolute, and open to abuse. People cannot be partially evil or understandably evil. And labeling people or political groups as “evil” sets them aside and condemns them as the impenetrable other, unable to be understood – outside the world of evil. In fact, a more distant view of such stigmatized people may even hold them blameless, possessed by a devil, leaving no recourse except quarantine or exorcism. For psychologists to eschew the concept of evil does not dismiss it from serious discussions of ethics or theology. But for social scientists seeking to understand the influences that lead to brutal acts, the invocation of evil is an unnecessary distraction, diverting attention away from explaining why such acts are committed.

There is also the problem of definition, which will necessarily be incomplete. The noted social psychologist Philip Zimbardo defined evil as “intentionally behaving, or causing others to act, in ways that demean, dehumanize, harm, destroy, or kill innocent people.” Impressively concise and comprehensive, this definition fits into the lexicon of social science, but it does so only by transferring evil to other concepts (demean and dehumanize) and to other observable actions (harming, destroying, or killing). A more direct approach is to use these more specific concepts and actions when describing and explaining violent perpetrators.

The social psychologist James Waller defined evil even more succinctly as “the deliberate harming of humans by other humans," but this elegant brevity blurs distinctions among very different instances of violence and ends up including nearly all adult human beings.

These and other definitions also bring with them the controversy of requiring explicit intentionality. In an armed political struggle, for example, it is difficult and often self-serving to maintain a moral distinction between planning to kill 50 innocent people and fully expecting to kill 50 innocent civilians – but not trying to. Moreover, as with most psychological definitions of evil, these definitions exclude cruelty to animals and willful despoliation of the natural environment.

When addressing the behavior of perpetrators in general terms, it is more precise to use secular and more circumscribed concepts, such as cruelty or brutality, or concepts that refer directly to well-defined categories of violent crime, such as abduction, harassment, torture, and murder.

Ultimately, thinking in terms of evil makes it very difficult to promote reconciliation. This year, as we approach the twentieth anniversary of democracy in South Africa, it is crucial to remember the importance of reconciliation in resolving widespread conflict. After nearly half a century of apartheid, F. W. de Klerk, the last president of apartheid South Africa, and Nelson Mandela, the first president of democratic South Africa, shared the Nobel Peace prize for their successful efforts in ending the violence and bloodshed of apartheid and for creating a new South Africa. During the fighting between the apartheid government and the liberation movements, people on each side thought of people on the other side as evil. But people cannot reconcile with evil beings. They can only reconcile with human beings, however flawed or destructive their past actions.

When we see the intentional harm done to innocent people as evil, we react with thoughts of punishment and vengeance. If we were to see that harm as the product of sickness instead, we would react with thoughts of quarantine and cure.

Quarantine rather than punishment would result in a safer society because it would allow us to isolate the wrongdoer for life or until cured even on mild first offenses. For example, child molesters could be sent to an adult-only town, thus denied access to children, where they could live and work normally for life or until cured. This idea has the added benefit of providing a group that would be easier to study with the hope of a cure.

I've done a series on this. We need to take this issue seriously and I'm glad to see you do this. Labeling others as "evil" is convenient when we want to invade their country, but as you say, it makes reconciliation nigh impossible. We are "evil" to them and they are "evil" to us and so we fight it out.

How about we all see each other as flawed human beings trying to get it right and work together? That's the only way to progress.

Thanks VERY much for posting this. Hopefully, more folks will get the message...especially those we call "leaders."

The concept of evil can be persuasive. Or, is it? Jung did not believe in evil and yet we have this: "The reason for evil in the world is that people are not able to tell their stories."

By invoking the concept of evil does Jung somehow make his point easier to grasp yet impossible to accept? So, Carl was human too.

The first step to reconciliation is recognition and acceptance. When we demonize incest, rape, and sexual abuse, we might be interfering with our own objectives.

Is this fear of ourselves a part of the Holocaust denial? Is it why your excellent article "Celebrate Your Memory!" attracts relatively little attention while the memory tricks and illusions of others make for constant news headlines?

There is an epidemic of incest and child sexual abuse occurring the effects of which represent a heavy burden on society. Society needs to recognize that denial increases the weight of that burden. I know you get it, but I scratch my head in wonderment that some in Psychology do not.